CCW Packet

CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers, 15 Loockerman Plaza, Dover, Delaware AGENDA Public comments are welcomed on any item and will be permitted at the appropriate time. When possible, please notify the City Clerk (302-736-7008 or email at cityclerk@dover.de.us) should you wish to be recognized. VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE This meeting will be held in City Hall Council Chambers with electronic access via WebEx. Public participation information is as follows: Dial: 1-650-479-3208 Link: https://rb.gy/crm87h Event number: 2532 842 9278 Event password: DOVER (if needed) If you are new to WebEx, get the app now at https://www.webex.com/ to be ready when the meeting starts. CALL COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING TO ORDER UTILITY COMMITTEE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1. Mid-Atlantic Justice Coalition Presentation (Kerri Evelyn Harris, Jay Monteverde, Rosie Stone) (Committee Action Not Required) 2. Annual Review and Approval of Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management (Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer) (Staff Recommendation: Approve the proposed amendments to the Governing Policy for Energy Commodity for Risk Management) 3. Evaluation of Bids – Williams Park Storm Pipe Replacement 1

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - December 13, 2022 PAGE 2 (Staff Recommendation: award contract to Gateway Construction, Inc. for the Williams Park Storm Pipe Replacement, ITB #23-0004PW, for $148,000) ADJOURNMENT OF THE UTILITY COMMITTEE MEETING SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1. Dover Roundabout Analysis for Governors Boulevard, Ross Street and Bradford Street (Sharon Duca, Assistant City Manager) (Staff Recommendation: for Council to receive public input regarding the options presented and to allow for additional research into low impact traffic calming options) ADJOURNMENT OF THE SAFETY ADVISORY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 1. Council President 2. First District 3. Second District 4. Third District 5. Fourth District 6. At- Large 7. Mayor Christiansen ADJOURNMENT OF THE PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 1. Update from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) on Membership Priorities (Steve Newberry, Business Manager IBEW Local 1238) (Committee Action Not Required) 2. Library Rebranding Presentation (Brian Sylvester, Library Director) 2

COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING - December 13, 2022 PAGE 3 (Committee Action Not Required) ADJOURNMENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE, AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING ADJOURNMENT OF THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE THE AGENDA ITEMS AS LISTED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN SEQUENCE. PURSUANT TO 29 DEL. C. §10004(e)(2), THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OR THE DELETION OF ITEMS, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WHICH ARISE AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING 3

Item 1. MAJC NOW A regional initiative of 4

Item 1. Who is MAJC? We are a DC, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia community-focused coalition that lives at the intersection of economic and environmental justice. We work with communities to create good economic opportunities that do not risk the health and well-being of their workers and surrounding communities, while also fighting back against industries that have disrespected their neighbors. 5

Item 1. Do you believe in MAJC? Your vision can define your community. Our regional initiative, MAJC NOW, works towards solutions that address economic needs, toxic hazards, and community health. We assist impacted residents to envision the changes they want to see for their communities, identify and pursue funding sources, and track the implementation of the funding. 6

Item 1. We are Dover MAJC NOW COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP TEAM (CLT) Akima Brown Rodney Barlow Molly Keogh Nate Attard COALITION SUPPORT TEAM (CST) Jay Monteverde Kerri Evelyn Harris Rosie Stone Deyla Bradley 7

Item 1. Why MAJC NOW? 5 reasons- 1. Impacted communities have been sacrificed for so long and rarely get a say in the programs and investments meant to benefit them. MAJC NOW is a chance to get the financial resources that would repair some of that destruction. 2. There are funds currently available that are not being utilized. Let’s not leave any funding on the table that could benefit our communities. 3. MAJC NOW helps identify funding sources and growth opportunities for communities. 4. MAJC NOW fills the holes/gaps in funding awareness, knowledge, and distribution. 5. MAJC NOW has the potential to improve overall conditions of communities, which often has many benefits including: increasing property value, reducing healthcare costs, and fostering economic activity. 8

Item 1. Sounds great, but how does it work? 9

Item 1. What does this really look and feel like? Dover MAJC NOW feature 10

Item 1. Priority areas for funding Let’s help our communities envision and fund improvements. Let’s not leave money on the table or get left behind. City Council Shared Community Shopping/Commercial District Facade Repairs Street & Sidewalk Wildlife Crossings Improvements Energy Efficiency & Program Assistance Programs Water & Wastewater Broadband Assistance Wildlife Crossings Assistance for Households — Nationally Water Infrastructure Significant Summer Camps & Project Credit Assistance Multimodal Childcare Programs Freight Water Infrastructure and Highways Improvement Funding Projects WIIN Grants to Reduce Neighborhood Centers grants program Lead in Drinking Water & Public Swimming (INFRA) Pools Train/Railway Crossings Program Rental Assistance 11

Item 1. Standout funding opportunities for Dover 12

Item 1. Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) Broadband Pilot Program • Provides low-income residents: • $30 monthly discount on broadband services • $100 one-time discount for laptop/desktop, or tablet • Notice of Funding Opportunity was posted on Nov. 10, 2022. Applications are due January 9, 2023. Cities apply directly to the FCC. Click here to learn more about the ACP 13

Item 1. Healthy Streets Program • Provides funding for breathable street pavement and street-side tree plantings to reduce impact of heat islands • Federal commitment of $500M over five years • $15M max for each individual grant • In the FY 2023 appropriations bill, Congress included $55M for the program. Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester worked on this committee to provide funding that was needed to begin implementing the Healthy Streets program established in last year’s bipartisan infrastructure bill Fiscal Year 2023 Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Funding Bill | Committee on Appropriations 14

Item 1. Community Development Block Grant Program • Funds beyond homelessness services • Funds activities which include, but are not limited to- • Acquisition of real property • Rehabilitation of residential and non-residential structures • Construction of public facilities and improvements 15

Item 1. More opportunities to fight homelessness • Neighborhood Stabilization Program Click here to learn more • Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program Click here to learn more • Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS Program Click here to learn more 16

Item 1. DE Low-Income Home Energy Assistance • Helps low-income households pay heating and cooling bills; weatherization and energy related home repairs • $100M on the table for 2023 • Formula funding, cities apply on a rolling basis Click here to learn more about LIHEAP 17

Item 1. Questions? Thank you! www.midatlanticjustice.org/majcnowdelaware facebook.com/midatlanticeejc @MidAtlanticEEJC @midatlanticeejc 18

Item 2. CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole (Leg & Fin) DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Finance office SUBMITTED ON: November 18, 2022 PREPARED BY: Lori Peddicord, Controller/Treasurer REVIEWED BY: Dave Hugg, City Manager and Paul Waddell, Electric Director SUBJECT: Governing Policy for Energy Commodity for Risk Management TIMETABLE: Annual Review and Approval. RELATED PROJECT: EXHIBITS Exhibit A – Governing Policy Exhibit B – Dover Notional Transaction Limits (explanation purposes only) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proposed amendments to the Governing Policy for Energy Commodity for Risk Management BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: This Policy provides oversight to the Dover management team and TEA (The Energy Authority) in conducting and transacting business on behalf of Dover utility. The Policy provides a framework and delegation of responsibilities to guide and administer the activities related to Dover’s energy commodity risk management. The Policy establishes organizational structure, delegates responsibility, and establishes internal controls and procedures to ensure transactional and oversight activities are conducted in compliance with the Policy and in accordance with the City’s normal operations, regulatory reporting and legal requirements relating to energy assets and transactions. There are several small revisions to the Policy consisting of basic housekeeping items in keeping with the current market and standard terms in relation to risk management. The most significant change requested with this annual review is found on page 14 of the Policy under Risk Limits and Risk Measurement Subparagraph 1. Delegation Authority. The Energy Risk Management Committee (ERMC) is requesting Council approve an increase in the notional value limit from $20 million to $40 million for the Dover ERMC in committing to financial obligations. We have continued to see significant increase in the forward market pricing which has continued to erode the purchasing power of the ERMC. This erosion reduces the purchasing capability of the ERMC which is why we bring this change before you this year. Exhibit B - Dover Notional Transaction Limits Evaluation provides a great visual of the reduced purchasing power - historical (8/24/15) vs current market (9/9/22). 19

Item 2. EXHIBIT A City of Dover, Delaware Governing Policy For Energy Commodity Risk Management Effective: September 27, 2021TBD Approved by: City of Dover Council (Last Revision September 27, 2021August 10, 2020) 20

Item 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY ..................................................................4 A. Introduction.....................................................................................................................4 B. Scope of Policy ................................................................................................................4 C. Objectives and Risk Philosophy ...................................................................................5 D. Policy Administration....................................................................................................6 DISCUSSION OF RISKS ...............................................................................................................6 MANAGEMENT AND CONTROLS .............................................................................................7 A. Utility Committee of The City Council .......................................................................7 B. Executive Risk Management Committee ....................................................................8 1. City Manager ................................................................................................................. 9 2. Director of the Utility ................................................................................................ 109 3. Controller...................................................................................................................... 10 4. TEA Client Services Manager .................................................................................... 10 MARKETING AND TRADING PRACTICES ............................................................................11 A. Standards of Conduct ..................................................................................................11 B. Products, Activities and Limitations .....................................................................1211 C. Contract Documentation and Confirmations.......................................................1312 D. Training..........................................................................................................................13 E. New Product Protocol .................................................................................................13 RISK LIMITS AND RISK MEASUREMENTS .......................................................................1413 A. Limits..........................................................................................................................1413 1. Delegation Authority .............................................................................................. 1413 2. Volume Limits ............................................................................................................. 14 3. Locational Limits ......................................................................................................... 14 B. Stress Testing and Back Testing .............................................................................1514 C. Instances of Exceeding Risk Limits ........................................................................1514 CREDIT POLICY ......................................................................................................................1514 A. Measuring Credit Risk .............................................................................................1514 B. Analysis and Extension of Credit Limits ..................................................................15 C. Instances of Exceeding Credit Limits ....................................................................1615 REPORTING .................................................................................................................................16 A. Risk Reporting ..............................................................................................................16 B. Credit Reporting ...........................................................................................................18 C. Hedge Effectiveness Reporting ..................................................................................18 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS ............................................................................18 2 21

Item 2. POLICY DISTRIBUTION AND COUNSEL ...........................................................................1918 A. Distribution Outside The City ................................................................................1918 B. Designated Counsel .................................................................................................1918 APPENDIX A – Approved Products .............................................................................................20 APPENDIX B – Approved Counterparties and Threshold Tables ................................................21 APPENDIX C – Business Risks ....................................................................................................26 APPENDIX D – Glossary ..........................................................................................................2827 APPENDIX E – Swap Transaction Representative ...................................................................3029 3 22

Item 2. PURPOSE OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY A. Introduction The City of Dover (“City”) and its customers are routinely exposed to commodity risk, counterparty risk, process risk, budget risk, and regulatory risk – herein referred to collectively as Energy Commodity Risk - in the normal conduct of serving its electric load requirements. Volatility of energy commodity prices and volumetric uncertainty (either supply/generation or load obligations) impose a substantial and direct risk to the City’s financial and operating performance. By authority of its charter, the City has responsibility for overseeing the City’s electricity operations, including the management of its cost of serving Dover’s customers with primary operational management authority vested in the City Manager (Dover City Charter §40). By agreement (the “EMA”) dated May 6, 2011 and approved by the City, the City has engaged The Energy Authority, Inc. (“TEA”) to assist the City with Asset Management and Strategic Planning Services, Risk Management Services, and Energy Management Services. This Policy for Energy Commodity Risk Management (“Policy”) is established the explicit understanding that the City has retained and delegated responsibilities to TEA to provide Risk Management Services. Additionally, the City has issued this Policy for dealing with the philosophy, framework and delegation of responsibilities necessary to govern activities related to Dover’s energy commodity risk management. As set forth herein, the City has established an organizational structure, delegated responsibility and established internal controls and procedures to ensure that all transactional and oversight activities are conducted in compliance with this Policy and in accordance with the City’s normal reporting, legal, financing and regulatory requirements relating to energy assets and transactions. B. Scope of Policy This Policy covers all transactions entered into by the City of Dover designed to meet the City’s electric load requirement and the management of risk related to these transactions. In the event of conflict between this Policy and the EMA, the more restrictive document shall control. 4 23

Item 2. This Policy is separate and distinct from enterprise risk management policies and procedures addressing the City’s safe operation of its generating stations and energy infrastructure, insurance requirements, permit compliance, employee matters regulatory compliance with laws and regulations of the State of Delaware and Federal Agencies such as EPA, FERC, NERC and CFTC or other potential risks to the City beyond the purchase and sale of fuel and electric power and its ancillary products. Unless otherwise explicitly stated in this Policy, or other policies approved by the Utility Committee, this Policy applies to all power and fuel procurement and related business activities that may impact the energy market risk profile of the City. This policy documents the framework by which management and staff will:  Identify and quantify risk  Develop and execute procurement strategies  Create a framework of controls and oversight  Monitor, measure, and report on the effectiveness of the risk management C. Objectives and Risk Philosophy The objectives of the Policy are to identify Energy Commodity price and credit risk exposures and give the City a framework for the quantification and management of these exposures. The Policy will identify the reports needed to convey how the identified risk exposures can potentially impact the City’s overall cost of providing electricity service to its customers and report on the risk management of the transactions associated with City’s electric load requirements. Under the Policy, risk management activities will be conducted consistent with the City’s overall objective of appropriate risk management. There are several objectives of the Policy which, when taken and executed together, serve to manage the City’s energy commodity price exposures. Specifically, the Policy:  Establishes framework for developing credit limits for counterparties and quantifies and manages the credit exposures related to potential counterparty abrogation  Quantifies the impact of the energy commodity price and credit risk exposures on City’s financial results  Manages the impact of the above exposures in line with the City’s identified level of risk tolerance  Provides clear delineation of responsibilities and authority, outlines a separation of duties, and ensures reporting of risk is timely and accurate.  Ensures that the impact of any action affecting the City’s position is consistently quantified, monitored and authorized. 5 24

Item 2. The City’s risk management activities will be conducted consistent with its overall objective of appropriate risk mitigation and never for purposes of speculation. D. Policy Administration This Policy has been approved by the Executive Risk Management Committee and The Utility Committee of the Dover City Council Committee of the Whole. The Utility Committee must approve modifications to the Policy, with the exception of the appendix information which can be modified with the approval of the Executive Risk Management Committee. DISCUSSION OF RISKS This Policy covers the management of all material energy market risks faced by the City. A comprehensive list of risks that are or could be relevant to the City is shown in Appendix C of the Policy. Among the most critical of these risks are commodity risk, counterparty risk, process risk, volume risk, and budget risk. These risks are measured by the limit structure and controls outlined in the Policy. Commodity risk represents the potential adverse impacts to the value of the City’s portfolio due to changes in the market or government policy. Commodity risk encompasses volatility risk, forward price risk, basis risk, correlation risk and liquidity risk. Volatility risk is incurred by sudden changes to the cost and value of market instruments. Forward Price Risk is the impact of future prices differing from historical prices as well as the potential for changing prices to result in mark-to-market exposure. Basis risk is incurred whenever prices differ between procurement and consumption location for power or fuel products. Correlation Risk is a reflection that multiple assets may experience varying degrees of similar movement which may change over time. Liquidity Risk is experienced when a commodity may be less available to buy or sell due to counterparties being unable or unwilling to transact a commodity in a normal timeframe. without altering the pricing of that commodity. Counterparty risk represents the potential losses the City could incur due to delivery risk and receivable risk. Delivery risk stems from a supplier or trading counterparty that is unable or unwilling to perform on its commitments including but not limited to delivery or receipt of commodities which would require the City to procure alternative supply at market prices. Receivable Risk includes the City’s risk associated with a counterparty’s timeliness of payment for services rendered. Process risk represents the risks associated with process problems including, but not limited to, inaccurate data capture, untimely trade execution or incorrect settlement. 6 25

Item 2. Controls over process risks are embedded in the organizational structure of TEA through the design processes and operating procedures. Volume Risk represents the potential for unforeseen changes from projections of excess or shortfall of capacity or energy from the actual needs. When variances are large coupled with large costs to transact and adverse moves in market prices this risk could be realized. In management of this risk, the City must be aware of the fact that unexpected variations in volume are often highly correlated with price movements. compounding the impact of volume in a phenomenon known as Covariance Risk. Budget Risk represents the potential to deviate outside of tolerable bounds of the City’s budget. Deviations from budget can be caused by forecast error or unforeseeable adverse changes in market prices. Regulatory Risk arises from participation in regulated markets. With the Independent System Operator (ISO) implementation of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order 741, the City faces increasing regulatory risk when participating in wholesale energy markets. The TEA Compliance department works in conjunction with the TEA Risk Control department to help the City manage regulatory risk. Regulatory risk is managed by:  Annual Compliance Training for all employees participating in regulated markets;  Integration of the appropriate compliance culture within the Trading department through ongoing interaction between Compliance and Trading;  An independent monitoring and exposure measurement on transactions that could trigger an increase in regulatory risk. MANAGEMENT AND CONTROLS This Policy articulates the management and organization of the City and TEA to serve as a control framework outlining delegation of duties and responsibilities. A. Utility Committee of The City Council The Utility Committee of The City Council Committee of the Whole (The Committee) has a responsibility to provide approval of this Policy. With this approval, The Committee also assumes additional duties. The Committee will understand the risks the City is and could be exposed to due to their energy commodity risk management activities. In this role, the Committee will have a responsibility to also understand the City’s policies and procedures, internal controls and systems which are used to help manage the City’s energy commodity risks. 7 26

Item 2. The Committee will approve any amendments to the Policy or limits within. The Executive Risk Management Committee will update the Committee periodically regarding the Policy and its functions. It will be the Committee’s responsibility to:  Discuss guidelines and strategic policies that govern the process by which the Energy Risk Management Committee assesses and manages risks  Review and approve the Policy at least annually  Approve new members of the Executive Risk Management Committee  Acknowledge the risk inherent in transactions covered under this Policy B. Executive Risk Management Committee An Executive Risk Management Committee (“ERMC”) has been formed to provide executive management oversight for the City’s energy commodity risk management activities. The ERMC is charged with the creation, amendment and administration of this Policy, including acquiring any approvals required by the Committee, and will ensure that all energy commodity risk management activities of the City are performed consistent with this Policy. The ERMC will meet at least monthly to review compliance and conduct its business as described in this Policy. The ERMC shall be comprised of the following voting members: The City Manager, The Electric Director, The City’s Controller and TEA’s Client Service Manager. When the City Council or City Manager has appointed an interim for any of the EMA’s position, they shall immediately become the new representative on the ERMC. The City’s ERMC will make decisions following the process outlined in this Policy. TEA’s Client Services Manager may include representatives from other areas within TEA in the monthly ERMC meetings who will attend in person or by conference call, Internet, or other electronic means, as non-voting advisors. Other City employees and TEA staff may also be asked to attend meetings from time-to-time, as the ERMC deems necessary. The responsibilities of the ERMC shall include:  Establish scope and frequency for management reporting to the Utility Committee based on agreement between the Utility Committee and ERMC.  No less than annually, review the City’s Energy Commodity Policies and Procedures for correctness and completeness.  Review and approve any new risk report or change to an existing risk report provided by TEA to monitor risks outlined in this Policy.  Understand and approve any models, methodologies, and assumptions used for measuring risks such as volume risk, process risk, counterparty risk and commodity risk. 8 27

Item 2.  Monitor the City’s risks and ensure they are within the limits and are being managed according to what is indicated within the City’s Policy and associated procedures  Understand the City’s risk management objectives and risk tolerances.  Review and approve the risk management and trading strategy programs and associated risk. Each program should be reviewed to ensure alignment with Policy objectives and compliance with risk limits within this Policy.  Periodically review any risk management program approved in light of recent market changes, and ensure continued compliance with its established guidelines  Review and approve new products, markets, trading counterparties and credit limits  Review all violations and exceptions to this Policy and report such to the Committee.  Approve the individuals or companies that engage in the City’s commodity transactions and are subject to the limits within this Policy.  Ensure that the individuals or companies authorized to transact on behalf of the City as well as manage its risks, are appropriately trained and qualified.  Ensure independence and segregation of duties between front, middle and back office at TEA.  Recommend changes to this Policy to the City’s Utility Committee for approval and ensure the Utility Committee understands the City’s overall compliance with this Policy and associated procedures.  The ERMC will meet at least monthly to review risks identified and reported on by the Policy, this meeting shall be chaired by The City Manager. Minutes of each meeting of the ERMC shall be recorded and reflect any decisions and follow-up action items to be performed. These minutes will be reviewed and approved by the members of the ERMC in a timely manner. Each member of the ERMC has a unique role as defined below: 1. City Manager The City Manager is independent of all commercial functions and carries the responsibility of establishment and maintenance of risk management for the City. The City Manager will be a voting member of the ERMC and act as a chair of the ERMC. Other responsibilities include:  Ensure this Policy is maintained.  Oversee reviews of the City’s energy commodity risks, limits, risk measurement methodologies and models, and programs and recommend changes to the ERMC.  Ensure potential transactions and their impacts on the City’s risks and limits defined within this Policy. 9 28

Item 2.  Develop and monitor the implementation of the Policy, and oversee other risk management processes and procedures established by this Policy or otherwise by the ERMC.  The City Manager shall name an alternate to be approved by The Committee. 2. Electric Director The Electric Director of the Utility has oversight for all trading, hedging, pricing, structuring, and market and operational risk management activities associated with the City. The Electric Director of the Utility will be a voting member of the ERMC. Other responsibilities include:  Review the effectiveness of transaction processing systems and procedures relating to risk measurement.  Recommend operational risk and business risk assessment guidelines.  The Electric Director of the Utility shall nominate an alternate to be approved by The Committee. 3. Controller The Controller is independent of all commercial functions and carries the oversight responsibilities associated with the City’s accounting practices. The Controller will be a voting member on the ERMC. Other responsibilities include: Commented [KG1]: Does the Controller have oversight of the PILOT?  Perform financial accounting including accounting for hedging and derivatives activities.  Comply with tax rules and make appropriate tax elections.  Record realized and unrealized gains and losses.  Reconcile general ledger, cash transactions and margin accounts.  Implement tax-hedge accounting policies and other regulatory tax requirements.  Develop and maintain documentation outlining standard procedures for conducting business.  Invoice counterparties and resolve billing disputes.  Perform daily/weekly/monthly transaction checkout with counterparties.  Develop and maintain documentation outlining standard procedures for conducting business.  The Controller shall nominate an alternate to be approved by the Committee. 4. TEA Client Services Manager 10 29

Item 2. The TEA Client Service Manager roles and responsibilities are defined Exhibit B of the EMA between the City and TEA. The TEA Client Service Manager will be a voting member on the ERMC. Other responsibilities include:  Monitor risk reports between ERMC meetings.  Report to the Committee and the ERMC on the City’s adherence to all limits and functions within this policy.  Engage the ERMC in discussions regarding events or developments that could expose the company to potential losses.  Recommend to the ERMC specific risk limits consistent with the City’s risk management objectives, risk tolerance, and risk management policy.  Coordinate and distribute independent market fundamental analysis.  Provide advisory support and recommendations as specified in Article 5 of the EMA.  Update RMC on training of TEA employees.  TEA shall nominate an alternate to be approved by the Committee. Alternates may vote, but only in the absence of the voting member for whom they serve. A person may serve for an alternate for more than one official, but they can only cast one vote. A quorum for a meeting shall be any combination of three voting members and alternates. A simple majority of votes is necessary to approve any action of the ERMC, but at least two voting members must approve the action. Members and alternates may attend by electronic means and count as present for the purpose of quorum and for a majority for a decision. MARKETING AND TRADING PRACTICES A. Standards of Conduct Individuals authorized to transact for the City shall not misrepresent, conceal or withhold information regarding energy commodity trading and risk management transactions to any person responsible for the accurate recording and/or reporting of such transactions; participate in any such transaction or similar activity for the benefit of any party other than the City; or hold or be a beneficiary of any financial interest in any entity with which the employee is engaged in trading or other business activity (other than ownership of an interest in a mutual fund managed by another party). Commented [KG2]: Are there Dover or Delaware ordinances to reference on this? Further, no employee authorized to place or execute such transactions may engage in 11 30

Item 2. trading power or energy commodities derivative instruments for his or her personal account. It is the expressed intent of this Policy to prohibit the acquisition of risk beyond that encountered in the efficient optimization of the City’s generation and load portfolio and execution of procurement strategies. As such, speculative transactions are prohibited. In the course of developing operating plans and conducting management activities, the City recognizes that expertise must be employed by TEA staff, and it is not the intent of this Policy to restrain the legitimate application of analysis and market expertise in executing procurement strategies intended to minimize costs within the constraints of this Policy. If any questions arise as to whether a proposed transaction(s) constitutes speculation, TEA shall conduct an analysis of the transaction and the ERMC shall review the transaction(s) to determine whether the transaction(s) would constitute speculation and document its finding in the meeting minutes. Commented [KG3]: Are there Dover charter or state laws that govern this? B. Products, Activities and Limitations Pursuant to achieving the City’s core objectives for the purpose of energy commodity risk management, the following limitations shall apply.  Permissible instruments will be restricted to the products and instruments specified in Appendix A – Approved Products of the Policy; o All physical forward transactions shall be governed by the Edison Electrical Institutive (EEI), North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB), International Swap Dealers Association (ISDA), or similar agreements with counterparties approved by the City. o The City reserves the right to enter into financial hedge transactions to effectuate Policy objectives, but does not authorize TEA to enter into financial hedge transactions on its behalf. Any such financial transactions that the City may enter into shall be governed by ISDA agreements with counterparties as approved by the City.  The maturity for each permissible instrument will be restricted to the maturity limits specified in the risk limits section of the Policy.  Transaction volumes for each risk management transaction will be restricted to the amounts specified in the Risk Limits section of the Policy.  Risk management transactions will be outlined in the City of Dover Hedge Program which will be approved by the ERMC. Risk management transactions will include the following: o Managing the forward price of purchased power for delivery to the City as needed to meet its electric load requirements. o Managing the forward price of natural gas and fuels as needed to generate power to meet the City’s electric load or generation requirements. 12 31

Item 2. o Unwinding or modification of hedges to accommodate changes in expected load requirements, or for economic reasons subject to explicit constraints set by the ERMC. C. Contract Documentation and Confirmations No over-the-counter transaction may be executed until an EEI, NAESB, ISDA, or similar agreement has been authorized by the City, approved by the ERMC and fully executed by the parties. Written confirmations will be required from counterparties, as defined in the Master Service Agreement between the City and counterparty. Contemporaneous with any commitments and prior to receipt of written confirmations, verbal commitments shall be memorialized internally as to instrument structure, quantity, relevant time horizon, price and any other relevant terms; such internal documentation shall be time stamped and correlated to the ultimate written confirmation to or from the counterparty. Both the internal documentation as well as the written confirmation from the counterparty shall be provided to TEA’s Risk Control Group immediately upon receipt for verification. In the event that there is a material failure to provide timely documentation or confirmations, then at the City Manager’s sole discretion, the offending individual’s or counterparty’s authorization may be suspended. Similarly, if the failure to provide timely documentation or confirmations is due to the failure of counterparty, then at the discretion of the City Manager, a moratorium may be imposed on transactions with that counterparty. In such cases, the City Manager shall notify the ERMC of the issues leading to the suspension or moratorium. Nothing herein shall inhibit any ERMC Member from bringing control issues to the TEA’s Client Services Manager prior to a decision on materiality or the imposition of a suspension of trading privileges or counterparty moratorium. D. Training The ERMC will ensure that all City employees and/or TEA Staff that will execute transactions on behalf of the City will have appropriate training in the markets in which the transactions occur. E. New Product Protocol 13 32

Item 2. As required to manage the City’s energy commodity risk the ERMC shall approve new products provided the requirements of the New Product Approval Procedure are met. RISK LIMITS AND RISK MEASUREMENTS A. Limits The limit structure is designed to quantify the types of risk in the City’s energy commodity portfolio. The City will manage and report on its energy commodity market risk using Delegation of Authority Limit, a Volume Limit and a Locational Limit. 1. Delegation Authority The Utility Committee delegates the following approval authority limits to the Dover ERMC. The ERMC may not delegate these authorities to individuals authorized to commit Dover to financial obligations. Position Maturity Limit Term Limit Notional Value Limit Dover ERMC 5 years 5 years 20,000,000 TEA 1 month 1 month 1,000,000 Position Maturity Limit Term Limit Notional Value Limit Dover ERMC 5 years 5 years 40,000,000 TEA 1 month 1 month 1,000,000 This limit structure is not intended for use when transacting day-ahead and real time in the PJM market. 2. Volume Limits No transaction shall be executed that exceeds the City’s electric load requirements other than operation of generation consistent with PJM activities. If there is an adjustment to the City’s electric load requirements and the existing transactions greater than 100% of the adjusted electric load requirements the ERMC will review and approve the offsetting strategy deployed in sufficient proportion to mitigate the encroachment. 3. Locational Limits Non-Commodity Transactions must support the requirement of one of the City’s generation units, native load, or transaction locations. 14 33

Item 2. B. Stress Testing and Back Testing The City’s positions shall be periodically stress tested and models shall be back tested. The processes around these tests are outlined in the Stress Testing and Back Testing Procedure. C. Instances of Exceeding Risk Limits Should the City or TEA enter into a transaction that causes the portfolio to exceed any above mentioned limits the Electric Director shall, in addition to notifying the ERMC, also notifyERMC shall notify the Chair of The Committee as soon as practicable and shall provide periodic reports to the Chair on the status the transactions for as long as the City is exceeding its limits. The ERMC will review and determine whether any liquidation or offsetting of transactions is warranted. The incident will be documented as a Policy Exception by the Electric DirectorERMC . CREDIT POLICY Credit Risk is the risk due to the uncertainty in a counterparty’s ability to meet its contractual obligations. The primary objective of this credit policy is to manage, to the extent commercially reasonable, the credit risks associated with transactions covered in this Policy while still allowing the City to achieve its objectives. A. Measuring Credit Risk The status of credit risk will be measured and reported through reports provided by TEA. The current credit exposure will be reported at the agreement level via a Counterparty Credit Report provided by TEA. This information will be made available to TEA trading personnel so that it can be checked prior to executing transactions for the City. Those responsible for risk oversight at the City and TEA will have access to this information no less frequently than once per day. The ERMC will monitor overall credit utilization and any credit exceptions at least monthly. When measuring the current credit risk, netting will be applied to the exposure if the City’s contract with a counterparty includes provisions for netting. B. Analysis and Extension of Credit Limits Physical and financial commodity transactions will be executed with counterparties approved by the ERMC with credit available to support the transactions. The 15 34

Item 2. creditworthiness of a counterparty will be determined by both qualitative and quantitative factors. Factors shall include, but not limited to:  A company’s debt credit ratings provided by the rating agencies.  Financial data such as an analysis of the income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow, as well as liquidity and capital structure.  Subjective factors such as company’s fuel diversity, overall size, risk management policy and internal controls, geographic diversity, and market intelligence. A credit limit is the amount of unsecured credit granted to a counterparty. Unsecured credit exposure includes amounts owed by the counterparty, whether billed or not, and the mark-to-market differences in value in excess of any collateral which the counterparty has provided the City. Any net exposure above the collateral threshold will require the posting of additional collateral by a counterparty. or an exception from the ERMC. Further information on the City’s procedure for establishing credit is contained in the Counterparty & Credit Review Process. Collateral thresholds, term limitations and credit exposure limits will be subject to the maximums indicated in Appendix B, based upon the lower of the S&P and Moody’s credit ratings. At no time will the City incur a credit exposure with any counterparty greater than $60,000,000 other than PJM. C. Instances of Exceeding Credit Limits The City and TEA are restricted by the credit limits approved by the ERMC. The ERMC can suspend trading with a counterparty, if that counterparty’s credit limit has been reached or exceeded. The City or TEA traders shall not exceed the Counterparty Credit Limit by executing transactions with any counterparty without approval of the ERMC. The ERMC will determine when it’s appropriate to require additional collateral if a counterparty’s credit exposure exceeds its credit limit. Collateral includes standing letter of credit, cash, and prepayments. All credit exceptions will be documented and reported to the ERMC and the Committee as Policy Exceptions. REPORTING A. Risk Reporting 16 35

Item 2. Preparation of timely reports is critical to monitoring risk. TEA will furnish the required reports on a regular frequency for the City in a format acceptable to the ERMC. In addition, the ERMC and its designees will be provided access to the City’s risk reports as updated daily via TEA’s secure Web Portal. Reports required on a monthly basis and for periodic meetings of the ERMC include the following:  Profit and Loss Report The Profit and Loss (P&L) Report shows the daily realization of transactions at either the transaction price or the market price as transactions roll from unrealized to realized. This report should show volumes, transaction prices and market prices of realized physical and financial power and fuel transactions.  Mark to Market Report The Mark to Market (“MTM”) Report conveys the potential transaction exposure, of all existing forward transactions executed, if the energy commodity portfolio was liquidated at the most recent market settlement prices. This report should show volumes, transaction prices and market prices of unrealized physical and financial power and fuel transactions.  Daily Activity Report The Activity Report presents a summary of the day’s trades executed in the bilateral energy market.  Cost of Service Report The City’s exposure to energy price risk shall be monitored and reported on a Cost-of- Service basis. All calculations are at the wholesale level. The Cost-of-Service recognizes all prior (expired) months within the Power Year on the basis of actual (incurred) costs, and recognizes all forward (pending) months within the Power Year on the basis of expected forward power and fuel prices and expected forward load-following risks. As defined below, the Cost-of-Service is an aggregation of Forward Energy Commodity Portfolio Cost, the Load Following Cost Expectation and the City’s Budget Target for Purchase Power Expense. o The Net Purchased Power Cost shows the net cost of all physical and financial transactions related to the City’s anticipated commodity requirements for power and fuel and is based on the price of all hedge transactions plus the forward market price of all unhedged transactions valued at current forward prices for energy commodities, customer-level cost per MWH of all physical and financial transactions related to Dover’s actual plus anticipated energy. o The expected fixed costs defined as load-serving entity (LSE) capacity costs, transmission costs and TEA management fees. 17 36

Item 2. o The Expected Load-Following Cost for a specified power year is defined as the expected cost (or revenue) associated with intra-month load variations due to weather or other events affecting demand. The ERMC will update the Expected Load Following estimate while lack of necessary market information persists no less than annually. o The Budget Target for Purchase Power Expense represents the City’s view of expected purchase power expense. B. Credit Reporting  Counterparty Credit Report The Counterparty Credit Report conveys the exposure to all counterparties with which the City has credit exposure resulting from its energy commodity risk management activities.  CFTC Reporting The City understands that transacting over the counter (OTC) swaps carries an additional Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) reporting function. Once required by the CFTC, the City will report on how the City generally meets its financial obligations associated with entering into non-cleared swaps in a manner acceptable to the CFTC. C. Hedge Effectiveness Reporting If the City’s transactions require a hedge effectiveness test, those testing results will be reported to the ERMC no later than one month after the end of the financial reporting period. The report will include a summary of testing methodology, assumptions of the testing and the outcome of results with a pass or fail by transaction. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS TEA’s Middle Office will maintain a set of records for all transactions executed in association with City procurement activities. The records will be maintained in US Dollars and transactions will be separately recorded and categorized by type of transaction. The system of report shall be auditable. The following safeguards for data security and backup will be installed:  Transaction data stored in the system of record will be replicated daily to ensure data redundancy;  The TEA Energy Trading Risk Management database will be backed up at least daily. 18 37

Item 2. POLICY DISTRIBUTION AND COUNSEL A. Distribution Outside The City The City’s Policy is restricted to the use of the City and TEA organizations. It shall not be distributed outside these organizations without the consent the ERMC. B. Designated Counsel Questions about the interpretation of any matters of this Policy should be referred to ERMC. The ERMC will provide clarification and explanation on any updates to this Policy. All legal matters stemming from this Policy will be referred to the City’s Legal Counsel. 19 38

Item 2. APPENDIX A – Approved Products The following shall constitute a list of approved products to be utilized by TEA to manage the City’s energy commodity portfolio:  Physical Power  Physical Natural Gas  Physical Residual Fuel Oil (#2)  Physical Power Options  Environmental Products  Capacity  Financial Power  Financial Options  PJM Demand Bids and Generation Offers  PJM InSchedules  PJM Transmission Products o Financial Transmission Rights o Annual Auction Revenue Rights  PJM Tier 2 Synchronized Reserves 20 39

Item 2. APPENDIX B – Approved Counterparties and Threshold Tables This Appendix establishes approved counterparties and their Collateral thresholds. Collateral thresholds, term limitations and credit exposure limits that are subject to the following maximums based upon the lower of the S&P and Moody’s credit ratings: Credit Thresholds from Dover Extended to the Counterparty Exelon Generation Company, LLC Formatted Table Threshold S&P Moody's $ 60,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 50,000,000 A- to AA+ A3 to Aa1 $ 40,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 30,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ 20,000,000 BBB- Baa3 $ - Below BBB- Below Baa3 AEP Energy Partners, Inc. Formatted Table Threshold S&P Moody's $ 10,000,000 BBB- and Above Baa3 and Above $ - Below BBB- Below Baa3 BP Energy Company Formatted Table Threshold S&P Moody's $ 60,000,000 AA- to AAA Aa3 to Aaa $ 45,000,000 A+ A1 $ 30,000,000 A A2 $ 15,000,000 BBB to A- Baa2 to A3 $ - Below BBB Below Baa2 Calpine Energy Services, L.P. Formatted Table Threshold S&P Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 15,000,000 AA- to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 10,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 5,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 3,000,000 BBB- to BBB Baa3 to Baa2 $ - Below BBB- Below Baa3 21 40

Item 2. EDF Trading North America, LLC Formatted Table Threshold S&P Moody's $ 18,000,000 Fixed Fixed PSEG Energy Resources & Trade, LLC Threshold S&P Moody's $ 20,000,000 BBB- and Above Baa3 and Above $ - Below BBB- Below Baa3 Sequent Energy Management, L.P. Formatted Table Threshold S&P Moody's $ 5,000,000 Fixed Fixed Conectiv Formatted Table Threshold S&P Moody's Unspecified * Above BBB+ Above Baa3 $ - Below BBB- Below Baa3 * Conectiv does not have a defined credit threshold, so for planning purposes, a $10,000,000 threshold is imposed as a conservative limit Macquarie Energy, LLC Formatted Table Threshold S&P Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA- to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ - BBB- or below Baa3 or below Morgan Stanley Capital Group Formatted Table Threshold S&P Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA- to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ - BBB- or below Baa3 or below 22 41

Item 2. NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC Formatted Table Threshold S&P Moody's $ 30,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 25,000,000 AA- to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 20,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 15,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 10,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ - BBB- or below Baa3 or below Deutsche Bank Formatted Table Threshold S&P Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA- to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ - BBB- or below Baa3 or below Barclays Bank Formatted Table Threshold S&P Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA- to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ - BBB- or below Baa3 or below Credit Thresholds from the Counterparty Extended to Dover Formatted Table AEP Energy Partners, Inc. Threshold S&P Moody's $ 10,000,000 BBB- and Above Baa3 and Above $ - Below BBB- Below Baa3 BP Energy Company Formatted Table 23 42

Item 2. Threshold S&P Moody's $ 30,000,000 AA to AAA Aa2 to Aaa $ 25,000,000 AA- Aa3 $ 20,000,000 A+ A1 $ 15,000,000 A A2 $ 5,000,000 BBB to A- Baa2 to A3 $ - Below BBB- Below Baa3 Calpine Energy Services, L.P. Threshold S&P Moody's $ 10,000,000 AA- to AAA Aa3 to Aaa $ 7,500,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 5,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 3,000,000 BBB- to BBB Baa3 to Baa2 $ - Below BBB- Below Baa3 Exelon Generation Company, LLC Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 60,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 50,000,000 A- to AA+ A3 to Aa1 $ 40,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 30,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ 20,000,000 BBB- Baa3 $ - Below BBB- Below Baa3 Conectiv Formatted Table Threshold Fitch Moody's Unspecified * Above BBB+ Above Baa3 $ - Below BBB- Below Baa3 *Conectiv does not have a defined credit threshold, so for planning purposes, a $10,000,000 threshold is imposed as a conservative limit PSEG Energy Resources & Trade, LLC Formatted Table Threshold S&P Moody's $ 12,000,000 * Fixed Fixed *Threshold is $12,000,000 as long as Dover maintains a Debt Service Coverage greater than 1.25% and Total Net Assets of at least $50,000,000 and Total Net Assets do not decline by more than 25% on a fiscal year end basis. Morgan Stanley Capital Group Formatted Table Threshold S&P Moody's 24 43

Item 2. $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA- to AA+ Aa3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ - BBB- or below Baa3 or below Macquarie Energy, LLC Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA- to AA+ AA3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ - BBB- or below Baa3 or below NextEra Energy Marketing, LLC Formatted Table Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 23,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 18,000,000 AA- to AA+ AA3 to Aa1 $ 13,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 8,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 3,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ - BBB- or below Baa3 or below EDF Trading North America, LLC Formatted Table Threshold S&P Moody's $ 18,000,000 Fixed Fixed Deutsche Bank Formatted Table Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA- to AA+ AA3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 25 44

Item 2. $ - BBB- or below Baa3 or below Barclays Bank Formatted Table Threshold Fitch Moody's $ 25,000,000 AAA Aaa $ 20,000,000 AA- to AA+ AA3 to Aa1 $ 15,000,000 A- to A+ A3 to A1 $ 10,000,000 BBB+ Baa1 $ 5,000,000 BBB Baa2 $ - BBB- or below Baa3 or below APPENDIX C – Business Risks Business Risks Topology Commodity Counterparty Process Volume Budget Regulatory Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Receivables Market Load Market Market Price Risk Risk Deadline Risk Uncertainty Uncertainty Uncertainty Performance Reporting Load Load Volume Risk Supply Risk Risk Risk Uncertainty Uncertainty M2M/Forward Generation Forecast Forecast Curve Risk Uncertainty Error Error Liquidity Risk Basis Risk Correlation Risk 26 45

Item 2. 27 46

Item 2. APPENDIX D – Glossary Back Office – That part of a trading organization which handles transaction accounting, confirmations, management reporting, and working capital management. Bilateral Transaction - Any physical or financial transaction between two counterparties, neither of whom is an Exchange or market entity (e.g. MISO). Capacity – The real power output rating of a generator or system, typically in megawatts, measured on an instantaneous basis. Commodity - A basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. The quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers. When they are traded on an exchange, commodities must also meet specified minimum standards, also known as a basis grade. Financial Bilateral Transaction – A Bilateral Transaction that is non-physical and is defined by a Source Point, Sink Point, and Delivery Point that may be any CP Nodes as specified by the Midwest ISO. Financial Forward – An agreement regarding a position in a specified commodity, a specified price, and a specified future settlement date, that does not result in physical delivery of the commodity. Rather one party in the agreement makes a payment to the other party on the basis of the commodity price at the future date. Front Office – That part of a trading organization which solicits customer business, services existing customers, executes trades and ensures the physical delivery of commodities. Hedging Transaction - A transaction designed to reduce the exposure of a specific outstanding position or portfolio; “fully hedged” equates to complete elimination of the targeted risk and “partially hedged” implies a risk reduction of less than 100%. Mark-to-Market Value – A measure of the current value of unrealized positions; includes both Open Positions and Closed Positions. Maturity – The time between the date on which a transaction is executed to the last date that power or gas will flow (in the case of physical transactions) or be settled financially (in the case of financial transactions). For products such as RECs which may be 28 47

Item 2. delivered independent of energy flow, the maturity shall be defined as the vintage period plus any additional time it may take to deliver the RECs, which may extend beyond / past the vintage period Middle Office – That part of a trading organization that measures and reports on market risks, develops risk management policies and monitors compliance with those policies, manages contract administration and credit, and keeps management and the Board informed on risk management issues. Policy – Dover’s Governing Policy for Energy Commodity Risk, as amended and approved by The Utility Committee. Portfolio – A collection of transactions. Realized Gains/(Losses) – The amount earned (or lost) from a transaction, considered to be realized once the time for performance has lapsed (e.g. delivery of power in the case of physical transactions or expiration of an option in the case of financial transactions). Term – The total duration of a contract, defined as the number of days between the beginning flow date and ending flow date, inclusive..- Unrealized Gains/ (Losses) – The amount expected to earn (lose) on a specific transaction(s); however, the time for performance has not lapsed. The total value of Unrealized Gains/ (Losses) is the Mark-to-Market value. 29 48

Item 2. APPENDIX E – Swap Transaction Representative Purpose: To ensure that the City of Dover, a Special Entity under the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act, selects a qualified representative (“Representative”) to provide advice and guidance when entering into swap transactions with Swap Dealers or Major Swap Participants. Definitions: Special Entity: As defined in 7 U.S.C. 6s(h)(2)(C) and further interpreted in 17 C.F.R. 23.401(c). The City of Dover is a Special Entity as defined by 17 C.F.R. 23.401(c)(2). Swap Dealer: As defined in 7 U.S.C. 1a(49) and further interpreted in 17 C.F.R. 1.3(ggg) Major Swap Participant: As defined in 7 U.S.C. 1a(33) and further interpreted in 17 C.F.R. 1.3(hhh) Representative: As defined in this policy and 17 C.F.R. 23.450 Policy: Selection: The City of Dover shall endeavor to seek and employ an individual or entity that will voluntarily act as a Representative for all energy commodity swap transactions between XXXX and any Swap Dealer or Major Swap Participant. The Representative must meet the following qualifications identified in 17 C.F.R. 23.450(b): (i) Has sufficient knowledge to evaluate the transaction and risks; (ii) Is not subject to a statutory disqualification; (iii) Is independent of the swap dealer or major swap participant; (iv) Undertakes a duty to act in the best interests of the Special Entity it represents; (v) Makes appropriate and timely disclosures to the Special Entity; (vi) Evaluates, consistent with any guidelines provided by the Special Entity, fair pricing and the appropriateness of the swap; and (vii) In the case of a Special Entity as defined in § 23.401(c)(2) or (4), is subject to restrictions on certain political contributions imposed by the Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or a self-regulatory organization subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission; provided however, that this paragraph (b)(1)(vii) of this section shall not apply if the representative is an employee of the Special Entity. The Representative and the City of Dover shall enter into a legal agreement that binds the Representative to comply with items (i) through (vii) in this policy. At no longer than any 12 month interval, the City of Dover shall review the performance of the Representative to ensure compliance with items (i) through (vii) in this policy. 30 49

Item 2. EXHIBIT B DOVER NOTIONAL TRANSACTION LIMITS EVALUATION KEVIN GALKE 9/XX/22 50

Item 2. WHAT’S CHANGED SINCE LIMITS WERE PUT IN PLACE o Significant increase in forward market prices o Retirement of McKee Run generation has made market purchases a larger piece of Dover’s generation portfolio o Generation MWh o Risk Offset o Raceway Solar uncertainty 51 11/17/2022 2

Item 2. FORWARD CURVE BACKGROUND o Forward curves reflect the market consensus for the value of a commodity in specific future delivery periods o Indicative of price to transact during these periods o Used to value future positions 52 11/17/2022 3

Item 2. FORWARD CURVE COMPARISON - NYMEX $9 $8 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $- 9.9.22 Forward Curve 8.24.15 Forward Curve 53 11/17/2022 4

Item 2. FORWARD CURVE COMPARISON – WEST HUB PEAK $180 $160 $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $- 8.24.15 Forward Curve 9.9.22 Forward Curve 54 11/17/2022 5

Item 2. FORWARD CURVE COMPARISON – WEST HUB OFF PEAK $160 $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $- 8.24.15 Forward Curve 9.9.22 Forward Curve 55 11/17/2022 6

Item 2. PROMPT YEAR ON PEAK PURCHASE ABILITY 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 MWh 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 - 8.24.15 Forward Curve 9.9.22 Forward Curve 56 11/17/2022 7

Item 2. ON PEAK PURCHASING MW BY YEAR – CURRENT $20M LIMIT 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 8.24.15 Forward Curve 9.9.22 Forward Curve 57 11/17/2022 8

Item 2. ALTERNATIVE APPROACH: SHIFT NOTIONAL LIMIT TO VOLUME o Historically risk policy used a notional value limit to constrain purchasing o Rising prices require additional limits o Falling prices leave excess purchasing ability o Shifting from notional limits to volume approach potentially right-sizes limits o Internal city limitations? 58 11/17/2022 9

Item 2. DRAFT RECOMMENDATION o Increase RMC notional limits from $20M to $40M o Retains same purchasing power as originally approved o Maintains operational flexibility 59 11/17/2022 10

Item 3. CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole (Utility) DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Water & Wastewater SUBMITTED ON: December 2, 2022 PREPARED BY: Jason A. Lyon, P.E., Director of Water & Wastewater / Engineering Services REVIEWED BY: David S. Hugg, III, City Manager and Lori Peddicord, Controller / Treasurer SUBJECT: Evaluation of Bids – Williams Park Storm Pipe Replacement TIMETABLE: Notice to proceed to be issued within thirty (30) days of Council approval. Project anticipated to be completed in sixty (60) calendar days. RELATED PROJECT: X REFERENCE: X EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $148,800 AMOUNT BUDGETED: $85,000 FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): Department of Public Works – Stormwater, CIP Project #SW2301 CIP Name: Emergency Storm Sewer Repairs Account No.: 101-12-18- 60-000-54031. Shortfall of funds will be covered by the surplus of funds from the Meeting House Branch Improvement Design Project, CIP ST2003, Account Number 101-12- 18-35-000-54030. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Award contract to Gateway Construction, Inc. for the Williams Park Storm Pipe Replacement, ITB #23- 0004PW, for $148,000. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: An internal maintenance and engineering analysis was performed on the stormwater infrastructure that runs along the southeasterly property line of Williams Park and discharges into the White Oak Tax Ditch. The analysis was performed due to the erosion of the downstream tax ditch. The city’s stormwater inventory showed there were two (2) thirty-inch (30”) Corrugated Metal Pipes (CMP) running parallel to each other, discharging into the White Oak tax ditch. However, when the Streets and Stormwater Division personnel went to replace a 30’ section of the corroded CMP, only one CMP was unearthed. The Department of Water & Wastewater was asked to assist by taking a video of the pipe where it ties into an existing catch basin. The video process had to be abandoned, since the bottom of the pipe was too 60

Item 3. corroded. After several heavy rainfalls, the bank continued to erode and eventually the second 30” CMP was uncovered several feet back from the bank of the ditch. The recommendation was to replace both 30” pipes and the two catch basins that they run through from the existing catch basin to the ditch. This project was not listed as a project in the current Capital Improvement Plan, however the condition merits repair. The bid listed three (3) options for the pipe replacement, and they are as follows: Option A – 30” Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Option B – 30” High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE) Option C – 30” Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) Staff recommends using the most cost effective, Option B -30” High Density Polyethylene Pipe (HDPE). This is the most cost effective due to the lack of corrosion that the CMP would gather, and the price of RCP is significantly higher than HDPE. The base bid prices shown in the table below reflect the bids submitted for this option. The bid was advertised to the public as an Invitation to Bid in accordance with the City’s purchasing policy by the City’s Purchasing Agent under ITB #23-0004PW. Bids were opened on November 15, 2022. The City of Dover received nine (9) bids, with five (5) bids being non-responsive. The four (4) responsive bids are shown in the table below: EVALUATED CONTRACTOR LOCATION BASE BID PRICE GATEWAY CONSTRUCTION, INC. HARTLY, DE $148,000 $148,000 MITTEN CONSTRUCTION CO. DOVER, DE $209,790 $203,496.30* TEAL CONSTRUCTION, INC. DOVER, DE $188,405 $182,752.85** TRU-GRIT, LLC SMYRNA, DE $211,982 $211,982 *Mitten Construction Co. was awarded a three percent (3%) reduction due to minority vendor preference. **Teal Construction, Inc. was awarded a three percent (3%) reduction due to local vendor preference. The shortfall will be covered by the following breakdown: Funding Description Current Spent / Savings / Requested Proposed Source Budget Encumbered Remaining Change Budget Remaining General – SW2301 – $85,000 $24,000 $61,000 $87,000 $148,000 Stormwater Emergency Storm Sewer Repairs General – ST2003 – Meeting $707,500 $362,810.40 $344,689.60 ($87,000) $257,689.60 Streets House Branch Improvement City staff reviewed the submissions and found that Gateway Construction, Inc. bid met all requirements for the qualifications of the project. Staff recommends awarding the contract to Gateway Construction, Inc. in the amount of $148,000 for the Williams Park Storm Pipe Replacement Project. 61

Item 3. EXISTING INLET BASIN PROJECT AREA WITH DOUBLE GRATE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED EXISTING INLET BASIN ± WITH SINGLE GRATE TO BE REMOVED AND 3 0' REPLACED 3 (2) EXISTING PIPES TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WILLIAMS PARK STORM PIPE REPLACEMENT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DRAWN: R.L.L. DATE: 09-15-22 62 CKD: --- SCALE: N.T.S. APRVD: --- DWG. NO: C-1

Item 4. CITY OF DOVER, DELAWARE ACTION FORM PROCEEDING: Council Committee of the Whole (Safety Advisory and Transportation Committee) DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: City Manager’s Office SUBMITTED ON: December 6, 2022 PREPARED BY: Sharon J. Duca, P.E., Assistant City Manager REVIEWED BY: David S. Hugg, III, City Manager SUBJECT: Dover Roundabout Analysis for Governors Boulevard, Ross Street and Bradford Street TIMETABLE: Pending selection by City Council. RELATED PROJECT: n/a EXHIBITS Exhibit A – Governors Avenue/Ross Street and Bradford Street Safety Improvement Options REFERENCE: n/a EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: n/a AMOUNT BUDGETED: n/a FUNDING SOURCE (Dept./Page in CIP & Budget): n/a STAFF RECOMMENDATION: For Council to receive public input regarding the options presented and to allow for additional research into low impact traffic calming options. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The six-way intersection of Governors Boulevard, Ross Street and Bradford Street was added to the City of Dover’s 2023 Transportation Priorities listing due to several traffic accidents that have occurred as well as related safety issues. As a result of these concerns, Representative Sean Lynn has offered to fund a solution to this traffic concern through community transportation (CT) funds. In turn, the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT), through a consultant, has analyzed three different roundabout/traffic circle options. The results of this analysis are provided in Exhibit A. Each option analyzed has advantages and disadvantages. Option 1 is a modern roundabout that maintains all lanes on all roads at the junction. One of the main disadvantages of this option is that it would require the total take of six (6) existing homes and properties. The project also could not be pursued with CT funds as it involves right-of-way and drainage impacts beyond the scope of the traffic calming program. Option 1a is a modified roundabout that eliminates lanes on Ross Street and Bradford Street to reduce the 63

Item 4. size of the roundabout. One of the main disadvantages of this option is that it would still impact four (4) properties which includes the total take of two (2) existing homes and properties. This project also could not be pursued with CT funds for the same reasons as that presented for Option 1. Option 2 is a mini traffic circle within the existing limits of the intersection to act as a traffic calming device. Due to the size, larger vehicles would need to utilize the fully mountable central island. This is a relatively new form of traffic control that may require an educational component to get local motorists familiar with its use. This option could be pursued with CT funds. It should be noted that the speed on Governors Boulevard was reduced earlier this year to 25 MPH from 35 MPH. A six (6) month evaluation of the impact is currently being scheduled by DelDOT. Other traffic calming options can also be reviewed by DelDOT including adding additional signage and painting the roadway, such as narrowing lanes. As a result of the above staff recommends receiving public input regarding the options presented and to allow for additional research into low impact options due to the disadvantages associated with Options 1, 1a and 2 above. Should City Council select Option 2, City staff can work with DelDOT and Representative Lynn’s office to proceed with design and ultimately installation. 64

Item 4. Governors Avenue/Ross Street and Bradford Street November 2022 Safety Improvement Options Governors Avenue/Ross Street and Bradford Street Safety Improvement Options November 2022 Option 1 – 6-Legged Roundabout – Maintain all Lanes Option 1 is a roundabout concept that maintains all lanes on Governors Avenue, Ross Street and S. Bradford Street. The size of the roundabout is necessary to accommodate all legs at this junction while maintaining entry and exit flares on all 6 legs of the junction. This option also provides pedestrian accessibility throughout the intersection and accommodates design vehicles up to a WB-50 for several (but not all) turning movements. This concept was developed primarily to show the extent of impacts that would result from constructing a modern roundabout that maintains all lanes on all roads at this junction. Advantages: • Maintains all lanes of travel on the existing six legs of the intersection. • Splitter islands provide direction (channelization) for vehicles when entering the roundabout to direct them into the circulating lane of the roundabout, while also providing pedestrian refuge. • Roundabouts act as a traffic calming device and do not give priority to any one leg of the intersection. They are also proven to improve safety as left turning movements are eliminated. • Improves sight distances on each leg of the intersection. • Offers beautification options in the center island. Disadvantages: • Requires the total take of 6 existing homes and properties adjacent to the intersection. • Overall cost for design and construction would be the highest of all 3 options. • Would require extensive drainage and stormwater management devices due to the added pavement to the intersection. • Even as shown, does not meet FHWA (NCHRP) roundabout design guidance for several approaches in terms of approach or departure radii to obtain approach/circulating/departure speed consistency. • Eliminates some parking along each leg of the intersection. • Creates conflicts with 2 existing driveways which will require modifying driveway access. • Does not qualify as a Traffic Calming project due to right-of-way and drainage impacts. City of Dover would have to work with Dover/Kent MPO for eventual inclusion into the CTP. Option 1a – 6-Legged Roundabout – Limited Access on Ross Street and S. Bradford Street Option 1a is a modification of Option 1 and eliminates lanes on Ross Street and S. Bradford Street to help reduce the size of the proposed roundabout. This option also provides pedestrian accessibility throughout the intersection and accommodates design vehicles up to an SU-40 for most movements. Advantages: • Splitter islands provide direction (channelization) for vehicles when entering the roundabout to direct them into the circulating lane of the roundabout, while also providing pedestrian refuge. 65

Item 4. Governors Avenue/Ross Street and Bradford Street November 2022 Safety Improvement Options • Roundabouts act as a traffic calming device and do not give priority to any one leg of the intersection. They are also proven to improve safety as left turning movements are eliminated. • Improves sight distances on each leg of the intersection. • Offers beautification options in the center island. • The limited access option allows for a smaller roundabout (and lower cost) compared to Option 1. • Access restrictions on Ross Street and S. Bradford Street help to reduce cut through traffic. Disadvantages: • Requires the total take of 2 existing homes and properties adjacent to the intersection and negotiation with 2 other homeowners due to minor property impacts near the roundabout. • Higher cost for design and construction compared to Option 2. • Would require extensive drainage and stormwater management devices due to the added pavement to the intersection. • Eliminates some parking along each leg of the intersection. • Creates conflicts with 2 existing driveways which will require modifying driveway access. • Eliminates through movements on 2 approaches – although on low volume roads with relatively short diversion routes. • Does not qualify as a Traffic Calming project due to right-of-way and drainage impacts. City of Dover would have to work with Dover/Kent MPO for eventual inclusion into the CTP. Option 2 – 6-Legged Mini Traffic Circle Option 2 is a 6-legged mini traffic circle located within the existing intersection limits to act as a traffic calming device through the existing intersection. This option also provides pedestrian accessibility throughout the intersection and accommodates design vehicles up to an SU-40, similar to existing conditions. Larger trucks (WB-67) can still travel straight through this intersection along Governor’s Avenue by utilizing the fully mountable central island. Advantages: • Mini Traffic Circles act as a traffic calming device and do not give priority to any one leg of the intersection. They are also proven to improve safety as left turning movements are eliminated. • Lowest cost for design and construction compared to other options. • Would require minimal drainage improvements and no stormwater management. • Does not require any right of way takings or major property impacts. • Accommodates smaller design vehicles, limiting trucks entering the neighborhoods. • Can be pursued as a Traffic Calming project. Disadvantages: • Eliminates a small amount of curbside parking along each leg of the intersection. • Not enough room to accommodate splitter islands, providing less channelization for vehicles approaching the roundabout compared to the roundabout options, and no refuge for pedestrians. • Relatively new form of traffic control (mini-traffic circle) may require an educational component to get local motorists more familiar with its use, particularly by truck drivers that will need to drive across the central island to make several turning movements. 66

Item 4. N 400 27 . 7160 MAI 50 6 NOR 2 0 NGOR 2/ 5 E 0 1 ALM .D 67 D.R 0 2 05 06716 02 8800 920 6 02 SR. TAYLOR FREDERI CK G 671 V. D.R.D11512/ 05 0 RUCE 25 27 2 B 2 RS 42/ AYE .D 95 D. R 0 750 02 6716 NA R. 50 ON 1 2 0 LEY D / 30 KEL .O 40 R D. ET BO TRE UL EV 00 DS 2 91 AR 06716 0 OF TY D 2 05 VER,CI 58 FOR DO 41/2 R.B GO D. RAD VE N.B RN OR S 0 760 6 02 AN 671 ISTE F 0 50 K 930 C 2 0 LOWS 10/ 77 6 02 ,LL 1 KOZ .D120 67 5 0 PERT ES I 2 R D. 0 18 2 PRO 0439/ AB EET MO R. D1 S STR D. ROS 0 0 670 870 6 02 R. 02 C. 671 BLE 16 5 0 N MA 0 67 S 50 AME 2 0 SO 82/ 10 EET 2 0 ZER J 4/ 30 RRI MO R.D 3 S STR FRA 3 D. ROS D.R.X 860 0 400 29 16 02 B. 716 0 N T. 67 SA 6 EA 50 LI 50 J 2 0 TRONA 9/ 91 2 0 HENS / 412 ITC 26 CU 3 BO H D.R.L D.R.Y 2 05 06716 02 6600 UL ET RNES J BEI L I LLEFEVRE TRUSTEE EV TRE R.D 7549/ D. 36 AR D DS FOR GO VE RAD RN 850 0 OR 02 K P. N.B 6 671 DERIC 50 S 2 0 E FRE 4/ Z 6 199 N 3 700 FRA R. D 28 D. 716 0 S C. 6 50 AME 2 0 ZER J 4/ 30 FRA 3 R.X D. 2 05 06716 02 8700 FRAZER JAMES C. D.R. X 34/30 0 840 6 02 NE 671 ERI 5 0 CATH 79 20 IC K 24/ S ME .D11 5 D.R 0 950 02 P. 6716 A N 50 SUS 4 2 0 ELLO 19 / ROS R.I25 D. 300 28 716 0 NIL. 6 ON 50 J 2 0 SKEE 80/ 17 OL 71 W D D.R. 2 05 06716 02 6400 VANSANT DOUGL AS A. 0 820 R. R 25/ D. 101 6 02 A. 671 NA 5 0 S DON 7 2 0 HI N 28 C 19/ HUT . .Q DR CONTRACT SECTION SCALE GOVERNORS BLVD AND ROAD NO. X TXXXXXXXXX RKK 0 30 60 90 ROSS STREET COUNTY DESIGNED BY: LMW EXISTING CONDITION SHEET NO. $D ATE$ $TI M E$ $FI LE$ FEET DOVER, DE KENT CHECKED BY: XXX XX 67

Item 4. N 400 27 . 7160 MAI 50 6 NOR 2 0 NGOR 2/ 5 E 0 1 ALM .D 67 ET D.R TRE DS BO FOR UL RAD EV AR N.B D 2 05 06716 02 8800 GO 920 0 02 . VE TAYLOR FREDERI 16 SR CK G 67 V. 5 0 RUCE 25 D.R.D11512/27 RN 2 0 RS B 42/ 2 OR AYE .D 95 D. R S 0 750 02 6716 NA R. 50 ON 1 2 0 LEY D / 30 KEL .O 40 R D. 00 2 91 6716 0 OF 0 TY 2 05 VER,CI 58 DO 41/2 D.R.B EET S STR 0 ROS 760 6 02 AN 671 ISTE F 0 50 K 930 C 2 0 LOWS 10/ 77 6 02 ,LL 1 KOZ .D120 67 5 0 PERT ES I 2 R D. 0 18 2 PRO 0439/ AB MO R. D1 D. 0 0 670 870 6 02 R. 02 C. 671 BLE 16 5 0 N MA 0 67 S 0 50 AME 2 SO 82/ 10 2 0 ZER J 4/ 30 RRI A 3 MO R.D 3 FR R.X D. D. EET S STR ROS 860 0 400 29 16 02 B. 716 0 N T. 67 SA 6 EA 50 LI 50 J 2 0 TRONA 9/ 91 2 0 HENS / 412 ITC 26 CU 3 H R.Y D.R.L D. 2 05 06716 02 6600 RNES J BEI L I LLEFEVRE TRUSTEE R.D 7549/ D. 36 0 850 6 02 K P. 671 DERIC 50 2 0 E FRE 4/199 NZ 36 700 FRA R. D 28 D. 716 0 S C. 6 50 AME 2 0 ZER J 4/ 30 FRA 3 R.X D. BO UL 2 05 06716 02 8700 EV FRAZER JAMES C. AR D.R. X 34/30 D 0 840 02 NE GO 6 671 ERI 5 0 CATH 79 20 I VE SC K ME .D11 524/ RN D.R 950 0 OR 6716 02 A N P. S 50 2 0 ELLO SUS 4 19 / ROS R.I25 D. 300 28 716 0 NIL. 6 ON 50 J 2 0 SKEE 80/ 17 OL 1 ET W D 7 D.R. TRE DS LEGEND FOR RAD 2 05 06716 02 6400 AS A. N.B VANSANT DOUGL 0 ROW LINE PROPOSED TRUCK APRON 820 R. R 25/ D. 101 6 02 A. 671 NA 5 0 S DON 7 2 0 HI N 28 C 19/ HUT . .Q DR PCC CURB PROPOSED TOPSOIL / SEEDING PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION PROPOSED DRIVEWAY PROPOSED SIDEWALK FULL DEPTH PAVING ASPHALT CONTRACT SECTION SCALE GOVERNORS BLVD AND ROAD NO. X TXXXXXXXXX RKK 0 30 60 90 ROSS STREET COUNTY DESIGNED BY: LMW CONCEPT-1 SHEET NO. $D ATE$ $TI M E$ $FI LE$ FEET DOVER, DE KENT CHECKED BY: XXX XX 68

Item 4. BO UL N EV AR D GO VE RN 27 400 . OR 60 AI S 71 M 50 6 NOR ET 2 0 NGOR 2/ 5 E 0 1 ALM .D 67 TRE D.R DS FOR RAD N.B 0 2 05 06716 02 8800 920 6 02 SR. TAYLOR FREDERI CK G 671 V. D.R.D11512/ 05 0 RUCE 25 27 2 B 2 RS 42/ AYE .D 95 D. R 0 750 02 6716 NA R. 50 ON 1 2 0 LEY D / 30 KEL .O 40 R D. 00 2 91 6716 0 OF 0 TY 2 05 VER,CI 58 DO 41/2 D.R.B EET S STR ROS 0 760 6 02 AN 671 ISTE F 0 50 K 930 C 2 0 LOWS 10/ 77 6 02 ,LL 1 KOZ .D120 67 5 0 PERT ES I 2 R D. 0 18 2 PRO 0439/ AB MO R. D1 D. 0 0 670 870 6 02 R. 02 C. 671 BLE 16 5 0 N MA 0 67 S 0 50 AME 2 SO 82/ 10 2 0 ZER J 4/ 30 RRI A 3 MO R.D 3 FR R.X D. D. EET S STR ROS 860 0 400 29 16 02 B. 716 0 N T. 67 SA 6 EA 50 LI 50 J 2 0 TRONA 9/ 91 2 0 HENS / 412 ITC 26 CU 3 H R.Y D.R.L D. 2 05 06716 02 6600 RNES J BEI L I LLEFEVRE TRUSTEE R.D 7549/ D. 36 0 850 6 02 K P. 671 DERIC 50 2 0 E FRE 4/199 NZ 36 700 FRA R. D 28 D. 716 0 S C. 6 50 AME 2 0 ZER J 4/ 30 FRA 3 R.X D. 2 05 06716 02 8700 FRAZER JAMES C. D.R. X 34/30 0 840 6 02 NE 671 ERI 5 0 CATH 79 20 I ET SC K 524/ ME .D11 TRE D.R 0 950 02 P. 716 N DS 6 A 50 SUS 4 2 0 ELLO 19 / ROS R.I25 FOR D. RAD N.B 300 28 716 0 NIL. 6 ON 50 J 2 0 SKEE 80/ 17 OL 71 W D D.R. BO UL LEGEND EV 2 05 06716 02 6400 AR VANSANT DOUGL AS A. D 0 820 ROW LINE PROPOSED TRUCK APRON GO R. R 25/ D. 101 6 02 A. 671 NA 5 0 S DON 7 VE 2 0 HI N 28 19/ RN C HUT . .Q DR PCC CURB PROPOSED TOPSOIL / SEEDING OR S PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION PROPOSED SIDEWALK FULL DEPTH PAVING ASPHALT CONTRACT SECTION SCALE GOVERNORS BLVD AND ROAD NO. X TXXXXXXXXX RKK 0 30 60 90 ROSS STREET COUNTY DESIGNED BY: LMW CONCEPT-1A SHEET NO. $D ATE$ $TI M E$ $FI LE$ FEET DOVER, DE KENT CHECKED BY: XXX XX 69

Item 4. N BO UL EV AR D 400 160 27 AI . GO 7 M NOR VE 6 50 2 0 NGOR 2/ 5 E 0 1 RN ALM .D 67 R D. OR S ET 0 920 TRE 2 05 06716 02 8800 6 02 SR. TAYLOR FREDERI CK G 671 V. 5 0 RUCE 25 DS D.R.D11512/27 2 0 B 2 RS 42/ AYE .D 95 FOR D. R 0 750 02 RAD 6716 NA R. 50 ON 1 2 0 LEY D / 30 N.B KEL .O 40 R D. 00 2 91 6716 0 OF 0 TY 2 05 VER,CI 58 DO 41/2 D.R.B 0 760 02 N 6 671 ISTE FA EET 0 50 K 2 0 LOWS 10/ 77 S STR 02 930 C L KOZ .D120 ROS 6716 ES I ,L R 05 0 PERT 2 D. 2 PRO 0439/ 18 AB MO R. D1 D. 0 0 670 870 6 02 R. 02 C. 671 BLE 16 5 0 N MA 0 67 S 0 50 AME 2 SO 82/ 10 2 0 ZER J 4/ 30 RRI A 3 MO R.D 3 FR R.X D. D. EET S STR ROS 860 0 400 29 16 02 B. 716 0 N T. 67 SA 6 EA 50 LI 50 J 2 0 TRONA 9/ 91 2 0 HENS / 412 ITC 26 CU 3 H R.Y D.R.L D. 2 05 06716 02 6600 RNES J BEI L I LLEFEVRE TRUSTEE R.D 7549/ D. 36 0 850 6 02 K P. 671 DERIC 50 2 0 E FRE 4/199 NZ 36 700 FRA R. D 28 ET 16 0 S C. D. 67 AME TRE 50 2 0 ZER J 4/ 30 FRA 3 R.X DS D. FOR 2 05 06716 02 8700 RAD FRAZER JAMES C. D.R. X 34/30 N.B 0 840 6 02 NE 671 ERI 5 0 CATH 79 20 IC K 24/ S ME .D11 5 D.R 0 950 02 P. 6716 A N 50 SUS 4 2 0 ELLO 19 / ROS R.I25 D. 300 28 716 0 NIL. 6 ON 50 J 2 0 SKEE 80/ 17 BO W OL D 71 UL D.R. EV AR D LEGEND GO 2 05 06716 02 6400 VE VANSANT DOUGL AS A. RN 0 ROW LINE PROPOSED TRUCK APRON 820 R. R 25/ D. 101 OR 6 02 A. 671 NA S 5 0 S DON 7 2 0 HI N 8 2 C 19/ HUT . .Q DR PCC CURB PROPOSED TOPSOIL / SEEDING PROPOSED RAISED CENTER PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION ISLAND PROPOSED SIDEWALK FULL DEPTH PAVING ASPHALT CONCEPT 2 CONTRACT SECTION SCALE GOVERNORS BLVD AND ROAD NO. X TXXXXXXXXX RKK 0 30 60 90 ROSS STREET COUNTY DESIGNED BY: BML URBAN MINI SHEET NO. $D ATE$ $TI M E$ $FI LE$ FEET DOVER, DE KENT CHECKED BY: XXX TRAFFIC CRICLE XX 70

Item 7. BRAND GUIDE 2022/23 71

Mission Item 7. Building better community through inclusive programming and resources for lifelong learning. Dover Public Library © and confidential 4 72

Vision Item 7. We are a resource for accessible education, outreach and materials for community members at every age. Finding resources that aid and support the growth of our community should be accessible for everyone. Dover Public Library © and confidential 5 73

Promise Item 7. We’re more than books, we’re a local resource led by passionate people. Dover Public Library © and confidential 6 74

Positioning Item 7. Dover Public Library is more than books, it’s a resource for building better community. Our inclusive programming and online resources offer lifelong learning led by passionate people. We provide accessible education, outreach, and materials for community members at every age. #buildingbettercommunity Dover Public Library © and confidential 8 75

Logo Item 7. DPL is set in a big bold custom blocks.These represent our strategyof building a better community.The Dover Public Library stack nestles within the blocked acronym in every formation; representing support and inclusivity and an open space for everyone. Dover Public Library © and confidential 10 76

Logo Suite Item 7. Dover Public Library © and confidential 11 77

Fonts In Use Item 7. Dover Public Library © and confidential 12 78

Color Palette Item 7. Dover Public Library © and confidential 13 79

Holding Shapes / Graphic Assets Item 7. Dover Public Library © and confidential 14 80

Business Cards and Stationary Item 7. Dover Public Library © and confidential 15 81

Posters Item 7. Dover Public Library © and confidential 16 82

8.5x11 Flyers Item 7. Dover Public Library © and confidential 17 83

Postcard Fronts Item 7. Dover Public Library © and confidential 20 84

Outdoor Banners Item 7. Dover Public Library © and confidential 21 85

Bookmarks Item 7. Dover Public Library © and confidential 22 86

Social Media Item 7. Dover Public Library © and confidential 24 87

Item 7. Application How Our Brand Shows Up in The World Dover Public Library © and confidential 26 88

Item 7. 89

Item 7. Dover Public Library © and confidential 29 90

Item 7. 91

Item 7. 92

Item 7. Dover Public Library © and confidential 32 93

Item 7. Dover Public Library © and confidential 34 94

Our Brand Item 7. Dover Public Library © and confidential 35 95

Item 7. Thank You! Brand Design by Lobster Phone, LLC www.lobsterphone.com 96